December 16, 2000. According to Discovery.com writer
Jennifer Viegas, dogs "may be able to read our minds, knowing what
we're thinking even before we move or say a word." She bases this
claim on an experiment some German researchers at the Max Planck Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig did with some dogs. Claire
Ainsworth of New
Scientist, the source for Viegas' article, put it a bit
differently: "Although dogs can't quite read our minds, they seem to
know what we can see." According to Ainsworth, the researchers

placed treats on the floor in front of a
number of dogs in turn, and forbade each animal to eat the food. As long
as the person remained in the room, the dog rarely went for the food.
But if the person left the room, the dog scoffed the treat within five
seconds.

They tested the dogs' behaviour in greater
detail: once with someone looking directly at the dog, once with a
person playing a computer game, once with a person with their eyes shut,
and once with someone sitting with their back to the dog. In tests on
six dogs, they found that the dogs stole twice as much food when the
person was not looking directly at them.

The scientists did not conclude that the dogs might be
psychic, but rather that dogs don't simply respond to a stimulus.
"This may mean that dogs are able to figure out what humans can
see," said one of the researchers.

On the other hand, Viegas spiced up her article by quoting
Jean Donaldson, director of behavior and training at the San Francisco
SPCA. "This might explain dog telepathy and why dogs can predict
things like cancer occurrences and epileptic seizures," she said.
Indeed, that's what my friend's Doberman, KC, said it was in his latest
e-mail.
[thanks to Laddie Chapman]

reader comments

17 Dec 2000
I read with interest Laddie Chapman's item on Jennifer Viegas's article
at Discovery.com.
However, when I went to the site and read the actual article I was
dismayed to find that Chapman had selectively edited the material in
order to present a particular point of view. To wit: 'According to
Discovery.com writer Jennifer Viegas, dogs "may be able to read our
minds, knowing what we're thinking even before we move or say a
word." ' The next sentence is omitted in Chapman's item. The full
quote should read : "Man's best friend may be able to read our
minds, knowing what we're thinking even before we move or say a word. By
closely watching the direction of our gazes dogs appear to be able to
tell what we're looking at or more importantly, whether we're looking at
them, according to a team of German researchers. " This changes the
tone of Viegas's statement from ridiculous to sensible.

reply: First, Laddie Chapman referred me to the article in
question. I do all the writing for the Skeptic's Dictionary. So, if you
have a quarrel, it is with me, not Mr. Chapman.

Secondly, it is a judgment call as to whether Viegas' second
sentence changes the tone from ridiculous to sensible. I don't think it
does, especially in light of the title of her article--"Can Dogs
Read Our Minds?"--and her concluding quotation. Viegas has clearly
distorted the work of the scientists, which had absolutely nothing to do
with testing psychic abilities in dogs.

In addition, Chapman says: 'On the other hand, Viegas spiced up
her article by quoting Jean Donaldson, director of behavior and training
at the San Francisco SPCA. "This might explain dog telepathy and
why dogs can predict things like cancer occurrences and epileptic
seizures," ' Again, this is a very selective quote. In reality the
quote from the Viegas article reads: "Jean Donaldson, director of
behavior and training at the San Francisco SPCA, said dogs could also be
sensing small changes in our body chemistry.

"This might explain dog telepathy and why dogs can predict
things like cancer occurrences and epileptic seizures," she said.
" Again this is a far more reasonable argument and grounded in
science.

reply: Again, this is a judgment call. I fail to see how
Donaldson's reference to "sensing small changes in our body
chemistry" makes her more reasonable. In my view, it makes
her less reasonable. Where did she come up with such a notion?
And what possible connection could it have to claiming that dogs can
predict cancer by telepathic means?

In fact, I read the Viegas article and found nothing in it that
suggests that she was doing anything more than reporting the facts of
the study.I realize that you cannot personally check every
submission, but in this case I would ask that you modify or remove this
incorrect item. And no, I am not a lawyer.Glen Hutton

reply: I suggest you read it again and compare it to
the article in New Scientist, where there is absolutely no hint of
anything paranormal. I cannot see how you can think that this article
is just "reporting the facts" when it is entitled
"Can Dogs Read Our Minds?", states in its opening line that
"man's best friend may be able to read our minds" and concludes
with a quote from someone who thinks dogs can predict cancer by telepathy.

Glen Hutton replies:

First, my apologies to Mr. Chapman. Second, as the item was yours,
and the website is yours, you are of course entitled to your
interpretation of the Viegas article. I apologize for being pedantic but
I wish to clarify two points with regard to my interpretation. 1) I took
the reference to the psychic abilities of dogs, as referring to the
seeming ability dogs have to read our minds. I did not assume the writer
meant you to believe that dogs actually can read minds. What she was
saying was "You know when your dog seems to be reading your mind?
Well here is what may actually be happening. Your dog may be focusing on
real and measurable motions and smells that you are not aware you are
producing". Therefore the second sentence is vital. She is saying
that the dog may be guessing at your intentions long before you are even
aware that you are signaling them. This is clearly an example of dog
"telepathy" being a version of the "Clever Hans"
phenomenon of the last century.

reply: You are a very generous soul, Glen. I have re-read Viegas'
first paragraph again, trying to see it your way, but I can't. I don't
think she was using the headline and her opening sentence as teasers or
hooks. If she wanted us to read her as you do, she should have
opened with a different sentence (like the one you suggest), making it
clear that dogs seem to be able to read our minds. As it is, she
seems to me to identify reading our minds with knowing when they are
being watched.

2) As to the ASPCA director's comment. I give it the same
interpretation. Dogs reacting to small changes in body chemistry may
explain why they seem to be able to anticipate our actions
("telepathy"), and why they seem able to "predict"
seizures. Of course they are doing nothing of the sort. They are merely
reacting to scents that we are unable to perceive. These small changes
in body chemistry MAY precede a seizure. The dog's nose MAY also be
sensitive enough to detect changes associated with cancer (particularly
skin cancer), before the cancer is noticed by it's owner. This does not
seem to me to be an unreasonable theory.

reply: I might agree with you if the article didn't end with the
Donaldson quote and if that quote did not explicitly say "this
might explain dog telepathy." The body of the article does not
stray from what the scientists actually did, but it was sandwiched by
irrelevant and misleading references to paranormal canines.

Finally, I agree that both the title and the first paragraph of
Viegas's article were at best an unfortunate choice and at worst
confusing. However, even after reading the New Scientist item, I do not
find the Discovery. com article as egregious as you do.

Anyway we are both entitled to our opinions. Thank you for
listening to mine.
Glen

reply: I may be more sensitive than most readers of Discovery.com
since a) that site seems to have more than its share of paranormal and
pseudoscientific "sightings"; and b) there is already enough
non-sense about
psychic pets being spread by Rupert Sheldrake and others.

Then again, you just may be a very charitable chap.

19 Dec 2000
The article about "can dogs read out minds?" in discovery.com
is completely ridiculous, but not for the obvious reason of interjecting
telepathy into the equation. The fact that a study was done on if dogs
know what humans are looking at, and that discovery commented on it are
silly beyond words. Anyone who has ever had a dog knows 2 things: 1.
dogs make eye contact with people. 2. maintaining eye contact with a
strange or agitated dog can make it more hostile.

If a dog is happy to see you, it makes and maintains eye contact.
When they want something from you, they make eye contact. In fact, just
about the only thing that can make a happy dog break eye contact from
someone it likes, is if that someone waves a treat or toy off to the
side. So in that light, it comes as no surprise that dogs know when
people aren't looking.

The real question is if the concept of eyes as "seeing
devices" is instinctual, or learned. Given that dogs make eye
contact with other dogs, and knowing if a rival dog is looking at you is
conducive to canine survival, it doesn't seem like that much of a
stretch for dogs to extrapolate that the shiny round things above the
human noise flap serves the same purpose as the shiny round things above
the doggie noise flap.-Devon

December 14, 2000.Sheila
King, an exercise physiologist at UCLA, sees herself in the tradition of
Aristotle and Plato because she, like them, "combined science,
philosophy and metaphysics in a unified approach to life." In an
article for
MSN.com, she claims just about any exercise activity can be a
spiritual experience. I suppose for spiritual people just about anything
can be a spiritual experience, but they don't usually claim that they are
doing anything scientific when they are being spiritual. King does:

The integration of action,
thought and emotion creates a vital life force that enhances our workouts
along with our quality of life. The new age of science and medicine is
beginning to draw on spirituality to help people cope with illness and
enhance health, with good reason: This inner source is a cost-effective
therapy with virtually no negative side effects!

She doesn't clarify the scientific notions of a
"vital life force" or "inner force", but I'm sure her
readers know what she means.

Exercise such as running or
cycling produces a natural tendency to focus inward, and requires you to
draw on your vital inner force to transcend perceived barriers of
intensity, distance or duration.

She doesn't say if this is true for people with gout or tendonitis.
But she does claim that

Only a handful of controlled
research studies in the United States have explored the mind-body
connection, but already these practices have proved helpful in the
treatment of conditions such as cardiovascular disease and asthma.

She doesn't mention any specific studies, however, nor
does she specify what mind-body practices were "helpful" nor
exactly how they were "helpful" in treating cardiovascular
disease and asthma.

King does seem to have some useful common-sense and
non-controversial advice for relaxing after exercise, however, such as
listening to relaxing music and doing some controlled breathing. Her
advice to examine our goals and do some thinking while exercising would no
doubt meet with Aristotle's approval.
[thanks to Devon]

December 7, 2000.Sometimes
stories about alternative "medicine" make me sick, like
this
one about a traditionally trained immuno-geneticist who dresses up in
a bear suit and treats his patients with feathers and totems. According to
Dr. Michael Samuels:

What you know is a good doctor
has moments where they look into your eyes, where you can feel the
interconnection with you — a merger — their heart opening. When that’s
missing there’s a coldness that the patient feels and the healing is
incomplete.

I've never had such a moment and, if I prayed, I'd pray
that I never do. I don't want a soul mate when I go to a physician, but I
am getting the feeling that I'm unusual in this respect.
[thanks to Jon Henrik Gilhuus]

reader comments

08 Dec 2000
In regards to your comment "I don't want a soul mate when I go to a
physician, but I am getting the feeling that I'm unusual in this
respect."

Well, think about the role Doctors play. They save lives. They
provide salvation from suffering and death. They provide what many
religions promise. We demand perfection from doctors. We have
essentially elevated them to demi-god status. It should come as no
surprise that in a species that seems bent on seeking and creating gods
and divinity, that when presented with a physical, tangible facsimile of
that which is sought, we would project our expectations of the divine
onto it. In the western, Christian areas, we've been taught that the
furious angry god of the old testament is now a loving, tender, caring
father who will provide our every need. It should therefore come as no
surprise that such expectations are projected onto doctors too.

This begs the question as to why this is a recent phenomenon?
Considering that up until recently, "healers" have not been
terribly successful, and the image of god as a cuddly loving father is a
relatively recent phenomenon due to increased literacy in the past
300-500 years, thus revoking the ability of the literate priests from emphasizing
the blind obedience to a mighty, jealous deity. So both living gods, and
the expectation of nurturing and caring from a god have overlapped. When
our living gods fail, or aren't able to make us feel loved and special
while performing their miracles on us, we feel cheated, and turn to
traditions that make us feel good about ourselves. Traditions that come
from cultures that were blessed with vastly shorter lifespans.Devon

reply: You might want to invest a few $ in a book on world
religions.

October 31, 2000. Perhaps it is the obligatory
stupid haunting story for Halloween, but Jaymi Freiden of the Savannah
Morning News has a feature article about ghosts haunting the local
Harley-Davidson Motorcycle shop. The story focuses on the work of Al Cobb
and his little band of amateur paranormal investigators who call
themselves the Searchers. They use scientific equipment because
"People believe you more when you have scientific data."

They have an infrared thermal
scanner that sends out a beam of red light that picks up on temperature
changes. A change in temperature can mean a ghost is using the energy in
that area, either increasing or decreasing the temperature, Thomas said.
It can also affect magnetic fields, which is why some members carry a
compass. Then there are the cameras - both still and video - used to
record anything unusual that might be lurking.

How they know that ghosts use energy and change the air's
temperature is not mentioned. Nor are we told what evidence there is that
ghosts affect magnetic fields. But at least the equipment is
scientific, even if the people using it are not.

Freiden reports that "it's been said that Savannah is
the second most haunted city in America, behind Charleston and ahead of
New Orleans." I'm sure it has, but how would one go about testing
this claim with all that scientific equipment?

August 21, 2000. "The icecap at the North Pole
has melted for the first time in 50 million years, reinforcing fears about
global warming," writes Severin Carrell of the Independent
News (UK). No doubt Mr. Carrell did an investigation after reading The
New York Times (see next entry).

August 19, 2000. The New York Times reported
today that "An ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened
at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before
been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real
and already affecting climate." The front page story had the
headline: North Pole is Melting. Actually, about 10 percent of the Arctic
Ocean is ice-free in any given summer, many people have seen an ice-free
pole, and this is not necessarily related to global warming. This doesn't
mean that Arctic ice is not declining,
however.

August 14, 2000. CNN.com
and the
NandoTimes published an Associated Press report which glowingly and uncritically
says that some researchers have established
that acupuncture is "an effective treatment for cocaine
addiction." The study by some Yale scientists was published in the Archives
of Internal Medicine. The actual study only claims that "acupuncture shows promise for the treatment of cocaine dependence"
and that further research "appears to be warranted." This was
based upon the following results:

The Associated Press article fails to note that of the 82 participants in the study, 30 dropped
out before the study was completed. The AP also failed to note that the study
only followed the addicts for eight weeks and that the greatest dropout
rate was in the group getting acupuncture (64%). Those getting fake
acupuncture had a dropout rate of 37% and those in the relaxation group
had a dropout rate of only 19%.

Based on these results, if I had a vote on funding further
research, I'd vote no. The Associated Press article quotes Arthur Margolin, Ph.D., one
of the Yale researchers, as saying "the results suggest the need for
increased study of acupuncture and other forms of alternative medicine [emphasis
added]." If he said this, he was hyping the study beyond tolerable
puffery. Neither science nor journalism, much less the public, is served
well by exaggerating the significance of research results.

Arthur Margolin responds:

16 Aug 2000

The "quote" of mine you cite from CNN (which,
incidentally, I have been unable to find on their web-site -- your
direction to it would be appreciated) is in fact a misquote.

reply: That doesn't surprise me. Actually, the quote is from an
Associated Press story which is posted by CNN
and by Nando
Times.

What I have
said is that our study suggests that complementary and alternative (CAM)
therapies can be fairly investigated in rigorously controlled randomized
clinical trials.

reply: Unfortunately, this point is not made either in the
Associated Press story or in your article in the Journal of Internal
Medicine.

I understand that the degree to which our study satisfies that
description is open to interpretation; however, my statement was
directed to individuals, particularly advocates of CAM, who may feel
that the investigation of CAM therapies within a biomedical framework,
without extreme prejudice to those therapies, is simply not possible.
Whether or not CAM therapies should be further studied is another
matter. The findings of our study could not of course supply the
foundations for inferring that proposition; I think many have run afoul
of the logical incoherence of attempting to derive "an ought from
an is". It is interesting to me that you may have fallen into this
trap by seeming to suggest that CAM therapies should not be further
investigated, and furthermore, the tone, and curtness, of your message
seems to be such as could only emerge from one who holds what seems to
be the result of an unstated, and I fear unstateable, set of
"inferences" leading to the belief in question with all of the
certainty of a logically demonstrable truth!

Is this a new form of skeptical logic?

reply: Many, indeed, have run afoul trying to derive an ought from
an is, but I fail to see the relevance of that point here. A logical
point that does seem pertinent here, though, is the non sequitur. I
don't see how it follows that I seem "to suggest that CAM therapies
should not be further investigated" from my statement: "Based on these results, if I had a vote on funding further research, I'd
vote no." I don't think your results were significant enough to
warrant spending my money on further investigation. I have no problem
with you finding some private party who is willing to fund further
research of auricular acupuncture to treat cocaine addiction. And I
certainly do not have a general objection to scientifically
investigating CAM therapies. Even if I did, such is certainly not
implied by my statement.

If you read our paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine, you
will find that in the Discussion section we point out a number of
limitations of our study which decrease the generalizability of our
findings.
Sincerely,
Art Margolin

reply: I did read your paper and I did note that the Associated
Press article makes a stronger claim than you do for acupuncture as an
effective therapy for cocaine addicts. I wrote to you to find out if you
were quoted accurately (actually, you were paraphrased) because I know
that the media often hypes up scientific stories and exaggerates their
significance. Scientists do this also and I checked with you to find out
if the AP had got it right. Apparently, they didn't. The AP story gives
no hint that you think your study is a model for other CAM studies and
shows that rigorous science can be done in that area.

July 10, 2000. The Sci Fi Channel has begun a
nightly show called "Crossing Over With John Edward." Edward
will do a James Van Praagh routine,
claiming to speak to dead people of interest to those in the audience. Salon.com
says the show starts at 8 pm; the SciFi
program guide says it starts at 11 p.m. and that the first episode was
July 9th. Check your local television guide for this exciting new program.
By being on the Sci Fi channel, is Edward admitting that this stuff is
fiction?
[thanks to Joe Littrell]

July 7, 2000. The
Washington Times, owned by the Rev. Sun Myong Moon's Unification
Church, features an article by Valerie Richardson on a vote taken by the
Colorado Board of Education to urge schools to display the motto "In
God We Trust." In a deliberate example of the religionization of
journalism, Richardson writes that the vote was "a deliberate
challenge to the growing secularization of public education." Isn't public
education secular by nature in this country?